Yes, this is not really opinion. It is fact. The media is getting it completely wrong on McCain and the debates, including overstating the significance of debates in the first place. (We should simply eliminate debates in their present from, unless we can come up with a debate format whether the candidates question each other, and even that might not mean anything).
I heard again last night, after the debate (in my searching for media stupidity material, after not watching the debate), that the formats of the first two debates favored McCain. The first debate was supposedly on foreign policy, and this second debate was a "town hall" (fraudulent term) debate format supposedly favoring McCain. Therefore, the "spin" goes, McCain's failure to "win" both debates shows how bad he is. Lol.
What idiots. Anyone who said anything likfe the above merely exposed themselves as incompetent and hopelessly biased (both--either would not be enough to explain idiocy on this level). Even a fool knows that the first debate was not really "about" foreign policy. The debate, and this was unlucky for McCain, took place in the middle of the financial system "meltdown" (at least that was the scare). Thus, the debate was really always going to be seen through that prism. McCain was actually at an extreme disadvantage in that debate, and a "tie" was a victory for McCain. Sure, a tie was not going to win the election for him, but he was in grave danger of losing the election. He avoided that.
Straight talk here: McCain is not a good debater, He should not be "favored" over Obama in any format. Obama is younger, more attractive, and more articulate. Obma should "win" any debate with McCain, so long as Obama does not make a major gaffe. McCain may considr himself "better" in a town hall setting than in a traditional debate format, but that is a relative thing. McCain is pretty bad in either setting, and just cannot match the "chrisma" of Obama. I have not actually seen any evidence that McCain is better in the artificial "town hall" setting of last night's debate than he is in any other debate.
It was definite idiocy to assert that last night's "town hall" setting "favored" McCain The best you could say was that maybe it did not disfavor McCain as much as other formats. Obama has an edge going into any debate format, as the more attactive candidate, and only idiots (or people with an agenda) say otherwise. And any "advantage" the format gave McCain was totally offset by the fact that the economic crisis is still ongoing, and last night's debate was mainly on the economy. I am giving you straight talk here: All McCain could reasonably hope for last night is not to lose the election. Holding his own (I don't know if he did) was a vitory.
More straight talk: This idiocy that a tie is a "victory" for Obama is just that: idiocy. Yes, it is Fox News idiocy, as well as CNN and MSNBC idiocy, but I have already told you Fox News is only very slightly, if at all, less idiotic than the others (part of the problem, and not part of the solution). A tie in the debates is actually good for McCain, because he should be expected to lose the debates. This is even more true if McCain is really behind in the election, because the first goal when you are behind is to get even. What about the argument that if you are behind, "status quo" just means you lose? True enough, but irrelevant. You can'at expect to make up ground in the debates when you are facing a more attractive (physically and verbally) candidate. Your hope of victory is to "win" the debate throughout the important states, and not to "win" the debate. If you can establish yourself on "even ground" with the frontrunner in the debates, you have a chnace to win the overall victory in the end. A tie may be a victory for McCain, and it is clearly not a "loss". The only "loss" is a "loss" (which may be what happened, although by a minor margin, and on style rather than substance).
What about this "argument" that people worry about Obama being capable of being President, and that all Obam has to do is show just as much "ability" to be President as McCain, and he wins. What idiocy!!!! First, it insults the American people that mere words, and failure to make gaffes, shows a person is "qualified" to be Commmander-in-Chief. That assumes the American people are as dumb as "journalists"--an insult I would never assume is valid.
More importantly, how often did Obama debate with Hillary Clinton? 30 times? 40 times? And those were debates where the some in the media were actually for Hillary Clinton, even if the mainstream media was already mainly for Obama. If people in the country could be convinced by debates that Obama is fit to be President, should they not already be convinced. And McCain was hardly being impressive debating Republicans at this same time--even with the advantage of favor from the leftist media, who wanted McCain to beat Romney.
Nope. You are getting is consistently wrong from all of the media. There was never any reason to think Obama would make obvious gaffes in his debates with McCain. Why should he, when he did not make them in his debates with Hillary, with less media cover up than he gets now? If Obama did not kill himself in some 30 or so Democratic debates, McCain could hardly count on him making a major gaffe in a debate. Nor could McCain--looking at his own Republican debate performance and looing in the mirror--count on winning debates on style with Obama. McCain's attitude going into debates has to be that a tie is a "win". Oh, I am sure he hopes for a break. But, realistically, a tie in the debates is good for McCain. The idea that Obama wins by just showing up and looking like an acceptable Commander-in-Chief is absurd. Obama needs to win on style. He is not going to win on qualifications (which have nothing to do with debating, as I am sure people--so long as they are not media people--understand).
I guarantee you that the above is more "straight talk" on the debates than you are getting from any of the media. Note carefully that I am not saying McCain will win the election. I am not even going to vote for the man. All I am saying is that you are getting it wrong from the media--all of the mainstream media, including Fox News.
Realistically, McCain always had to win this election by "winning" the overall "debate" with Obma (not the events labeled "debates", but the overall campaign). In that context, all McCain could hope for is to tie in the scheduled debates, and that would be a victory in what has to be his overall strategy. It is not enough for Obama to "hold his own" in style and excitement. He needs to win in thoe areas, to offset his disadvantages in qualifications.
Look at the economy, Then look at where the election stands. Is Obama actually "beating" McCain, or is McCain beating Obama (given the advantage Obama has from external events). In other words, is McCain's campaign, uninspiring as it is, doing more for McCain that Obama's is for him? IN fact, is Obama actually losing himself votes over what should be expected, given the state of the economy?
In short, Obama may be slightly more likely to win the election that McCain. But it is hardly because Obama's campaign in succeeding, or because Obama is winning votes in the debates. It is because of the worsening economy, which is hardly a credit to Obama (which, by the way, Obama did nothing to help while in the Senate).
You deserve what you get if you pay any attention to the mainstream media. They can't help getting it wrong, because they are not bright, besides having an agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment